Purdue v. NaphCare

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 6, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01430·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Jacob James Purdue, No. CV-25-01430-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On April 29, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Jacob James Purdue, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail and is proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro se civil rights 17 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a September 5, 2025 Order, the Court 18 dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave 19 Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the 20 Order. 21 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The 22 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 28 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 1 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 25 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 26 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 27 to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues NaphCare and Arizona 3 Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry Director Ryan Thornell. Plaintiff 4 brings claims regarding his medical care, basic necessities, and retaliation. He seeks 5 injunctive and monetary relief. 6 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that in November 2023, he became violently ill and 7 submitted a health needs request (HNR) but was never called to the medical unit. He 8 asserts that after submitting multiple HNRs and “pleas” to nurses, in March 2024, he was 9 called to chronic care, where he demanded to see the “active” nurse. Plaintiff claims that 10 the nurse took his vital signs, determined he was sick, and tested him for pneumonia and 11 COVID-19, which were negative. Plaintiff alleges he was “issued” breathing treatments 12 until he could see a doctor, but 95% of the time, he was refused breathing treatments 13 because no staff were available to escort him to the medical unit. 14 Plaintiff asserts that in April 2024, he began to rapidly lose weight and submitted 15 an emergency medical grievance, which was ignored. He claims he then “attempted 16 another” when he began losing consciousness and coughing “so violently [that he] was 17 becoming violently sick.” Plaintiff alleges that in May 2024, he had a friend contact and 18 the Assistant Director in the medical unit, demanding that Plaintiff undergo tests. Plaintiff 19 asserts that in June 2024, his heart and lungs were tested, and he tested positive for valley 20 fever. Plaintiff claims he was prescribed fluconazole, which he began taking in late June 21 or early July 2024, and an inhaler. 22 As his injury, Plaintiff alleges he suffered severe mental trauma, extreme weight 23 loss, continued shortness of breath, loss of appetite, loss of sleep, painful rashes, scarred 24 lungs, and mental and emotional distress. 25 Plaintiff designates Count Two as a claim regarding basic necessities under the 26 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff alleges that he tested positive for valley 27 fever in June 2024 and was prescribed fluconazole. He asserts that on September 3, 2024, 28 he was moved to maximum security and “refused [his] medication” and his inhaler until 1 late October 2024, after he was transferred to a different maximum-security facility. As 2 his injury, Plaintiff claims he suffered increased inflamed rashes, shortness of breath, 3 continued weight loss, and mental and emotional stress. 4 Plaintiff designates Count Three as a retaliation claim under the Eighth and 5 Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff alleges that on September 3, 2024, he was “moved to 6 max” in connection with a separate incident and was “denied medication as a direct result 7 of [his] transfer.” He asserts he did not receive his valley fever medication or his inhaler 8 until mid to late October “as a direct result of [a] separate incident.” As his injury, Plaintiff 9 claims he suffered increased inflammation of a rash, continued shortness of breath, weight 10 loss, loss of sleep, and mental and emotional distress. 11 III. Failure to State a Claim 12 A. Defendant NaphCare 13 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public 14 function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts to support 15 that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom 16 promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 17 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012); Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 1997) (per 18 curiam). A plaintiff must allege the specific policy or custom and how it violated his 19 constitutional rights. A private entity is not liable merely because it employs persons who 20 allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Purdue v. NaphCare, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Purdue v. NaphCare (Purdue v. NaphCare) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Rose
429 U.S. 5 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Gerard Peter Mocciola
891 F.2d 13 (First Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)